Jump to content

Phoenix_jz

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    7,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2029
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

2,360 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Getting chased around the rafters of the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Ammiraglio di 1ª Divisione Incrociatori Pesanti
    -Italian Heavy Cruiser Ace-
    -Punk Rocker-

Recent Profile Visitors

3,752 profile views
  1. Phoenix_jz

    Dev Blog, "German" T4 BB Viribus Unitis,

    See, this is what we did the last time people mistook the nationality! WG, don't make that mistake again
  2. Phoenix_jz

    Regia Marina Tier VI DD Leone (Dev Blog)

    Unfortunately I can't directly discuss Leone's stats for NDA reasons (since becoming a wiki editor), but in general considering the irl capabilities of the class, I do think it's heavily overtiered - at the end of the day, the Leone are really old designs - like, WWI. They were laid down in 1921, but that's entirely down to steel shortages - they were intended to be improved versions of the Carlo Mirabello-class, and were ordered in 1917, and the designs of the Mirabello-class are even older. Had things gone so schedule, they'd have been laid down in 1917 or 1918. Delta for years below will use 1918. At tier VI, her competitors are the; Farragut, laid down in 1932 (14 year gap) Fubuki, laid down in 1926 (8 year gap) Hatsuharu, laid down in 1931 (13 year gap) Gaede, a 1932/33 forerunner of the Type 1934 destroyers laid down in 1934 (~15 year gap) T-61, laid down in 1941 (23 year gap) Gnevny, laid down in 1935 (17 year gap) Icarus, laid down in 1936 (18 year gap) Gallant, laid down in 1935 (17 year gap) Aigle, laid down in 1929 (11 year gap) Fushun, Gnevny-class, laid down in 1936 (18 year gap) Thus, the average gap is ~15.4 years between Leone and her tier VI 'contemporaries'. Their original intended role as heavy scouts revolved around the capabilities of fleets in WWI, when their high turn of speed (34 knots) and heavy armament (eight 120mm gun broadside) meant they were faster than most other destroyers, light cruisers, and scout ships, and better armed than anything other than a light cruiser. They were revolutionary and immensely powerful combat platforms... in the 1920s. They were also hugely influential and helped accelerate destroyer designs in foreign navies simply down to their fear factor. By the mid 1930s, their speed was no longer even close to exceptional, their torpedo battery was underwhelming, and their main battery, while still powerful, had very poor ergonomics due to the firing arcs of the guns - in particular, the No.2 mount between the funnels, and the No.3 is also stuck between the torpedo tubes and not elevated like those of the Navigatori-class, which succeeded them. Compare this imagine of Tigre (one of Leone's sisters) in 1938; To this image of the Antoniotto Usodimare, one of the Navigatori (taken in early 1939 before she was rebuilt); The 'elevated' gun platform makes it so torpedo mounts no longer mess with it's field of fire, which helps considerably - although unfortunately the second funnel messes with the arcs aft. Although they were upgraded considerably, and received directors as well, which was a big advantage (but doesn't mean anything in-game), the RM as far as I know considered them, now re-rated as destroyers, as second-line combatants in 1940, which is why they weren't to operate with the main battle fleet, but instead operate in the Red Sea attacking British shipping.
  3. Phoenix_jz

    Regia Marina Tier VI DD Leone (Dev Blog)

    I'm just sitting here hoping the WG employee was a bit hungover and typed 'VI' instead of 'IV', but given the track record with the light cruisers...
  4. Phoenix_jz

    R.I.P. Late Night GIF Thread

    I read the tags! Also: threads being nuked, 2018, not colorized;
  5. A great post, definitely interesting to look at the trends on display here, both from different tactics on display and different environments - I think it would be interesting to do a breakdown purely based on theater, ignoring nationality - I suspect mines would be a much bigger factor in the Mediterranean and Baltic than, say, the Atlantic and Pacific. Likewise, operational conditions of the environments can make things more or less difficult for submarines and their opponents. Likewise, doctrine - the British were by far the most prolific hunters of submarines with their own submarines (if I'm not mistaken, the only underwater sub-on-sub kill of the war - and maybe ever - was scored by a British submarine?), and aggressive an interesting tactic. Likewise, Italian performance varied drastically between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, the thirty submarines that operated from BETASOM resulting in the vast majority of the merchant tonnage sunk by the RM during WWII in spite of the rest of the fleet (115 being the total number of Italian submarines at the start of the war, with a small number added over the course of the war) being deployed in the Mediterranean. In terms of differences between the theaters, the Mediterranean for Axis submarines was far more devoid of non-warship targets, which meant opportunities for success were extremely limited. What few merchant ships were around, were well protected. It is also harder to slip away in its' clear waters than the Atlantic, and its depths were less. That being said, the tactics of the submarines were also very different. While even for Mediterranean boats, modifications and better doctrine were implemented (compared to what I described in discord), going from static methods to the sbarramenti mobili, or offered considerably more freedom - attitude was different from the Atlantic. Not only were such modifications included in Atlantic boats, but also training included methods learned from the germans, who had accrued considerably more experience in submarine operations against enemy shipping in the Great War, and in the brief period over which the second world war had already been waged. Leadership was more aggressive too, not only in regards to the individual boat commanders, but also the aggressive (often excessively) command of Angelo Parona (who was responsible for many of the changes), who was followed by the very competent Polacchini, while his successor (Enzo Grossi) was far more dubious, but it was too late in the war to matter much by that point. Given how much Italian submarine doctrine had to evolve during the war, it would be interesting to mark their losses over time - for example, did losses to British submarines tend to come less often when static patrols were replaced with dynamic ones and when diving times were improved, or did this not cause substantial affects?
  6. Phoenix_jz

    HMS Vanguard and HMS Dreadnought Problems

    Well, I don't quite think that would have happened, although I can see what hat would be a concern The dreadnought design proposed by Cuniberti would've existed in place of the Roma and Napoli, which were the two repeats of the Regina Elena-class, so likely it would've been known as the Roma-class - so a little more imposing than the name of a queen at the very least. Still, 'Roma battleship' and 'pre-Roma' and 'super-Roma' certainly doesn't have the same ring to it as 'Dreadnought'
  7. Phoenix_jz

    HMS Vanguard and HMS Dreadnought Problems

    You're right, but you're also wrong. The timing matters. The reason why what he wrote about matters is because he designed it before the Battle of Tsushima - the battle only served to vindicate his principles. His original ideas had been experimented with in a uniform battery 'light' mono-gun battleship in 1893, utilizing steam turbines to reach a higher speed than other battleships, although had shrunk this down to a smaller ship better described as an 8000 ton 'super' armored cruiser by 1899. For the requirement of a new battleship class by Italy he upsized this into the first two Regina Elena-class battleships, which were laid down in 1901. For the two following ships, he created an even larger version, which was his dreadnought design, and this was proposed for the 1902 program. However, Italy did not have the ability to fund such a project, and so instead ordered two repeats of the Regina Elena for the 1902 naval program (Roma and Napoli, both laid down in 1903). In that same year (1903), he obtained permission to publish the idea in Jane's All The World'd Fighting Ships (although it should be noted he had already written of many of these concepts much earlier, in Italian and German publications, which is of course the well known 'An ideal battleship for the British Navy', and came out in October in 1903. This, of course, is well before the Battle of Tsushima, fought in May of 1905, and the actual design (1901/1902) predates the though that went into the South Carolina-class (The first idea, although not design, of an all-gun battleship appears in the 1902 issue of Proceedings, although no argument was made for it -that would not occur until the mid-1903 issues of the same publication, and design process did not start until 1904). This also pre-dates that Satsuma-class (Designed 1904-1905?), and the design process of the Dreadnought (started in 1904). Don't get me wrong here - as I said earlier in the thread, it is absolutely correct to assert that HMS Dreadnought was the first dreadnought - what matters is that she was turned into reality, regardless where the idea had first appeared. But, that being said - the earliest developer of the idea according to all evidence was Vittorio Cuniberti, and he was also the first to turn the concept into a real design and then propose it. Likewise, his article in Jane's pre-dated the battles of the Russo-Japanese war and was independent of their results. Likewise design process of other dreadnought concepts are all pre-dated by this article, although it should be noted that the idea was already surfacing in US publications, even seriously, before his article in Jane's. At the very least, American moves towards all-gun-battleships can be safely recognized as independent of anything Cuniberti did (although, of course, they do note pre-date his concepts, only their English publication in October 1903).
  8. Phoenix_jz

    HMS Vanguard and HMS Dreadnought Problems

    Mmm, I have to agree their statement is correct. Cuniberti may have been the first to design the dreadnought, and it was his invention - but the British were the first to turn it into reality with the Dreadnought. She, the ship itself, was the first of her kind.
  9. I missed this thread a while ago, but this is awesome! Thanks for posting it!
  10. Phoenix_jz

    Yamato 20 inch guns

    And 45-calibres long was standard for Japanese practice, so the maintain the same ratio as most Japanese guns (and most naval guns in general). So you're looking at 22.95m length versus 20.7 m length, so 2.25 meters longer. I'm not overly familiar with the 51cm project BBs, but yeah - that criticism would only apply to the A-150's. How big were the four-gun versions supposed to have been? They must've been monsters!
  11. Phoenix_jz

    The Battle of Denmark Strait, May 24th 1941

    While she fatal 38cm APC shell couldn't have penetrated her deck armor, at the range Hood was hit the shells easily could've punched through her main armor belt, and it is by far more likely that such a blow led to her loss than any other. I'll also add that RN practice had long, long, since been altered to avoid the dangerous ammunition practices that cost them three battlecruisers at Jutland. It's not at all likely they would've done something that would let them blow up their own ship, even from a flashback in a turret.
  12. Phoenix_jz

    Yamato 20 inch guns

    In regards to the accuracy question - generally speaking, because rounds of greater mass are more resistant to forces acting against them, heavier shells (not necessarily larger ones), tend to be more accurate than light shells, as they stuffer less dispersion. That being said, this is not always obvious because they tend to be used at much greater ranges. While other qualities of the weapon can influence this (extremely low velocity, or high velocity, for different reasons), the question of greater mass and lesser dispersion (at the same range) is the general trend. In all likelihood, given the use of a twin turret, and the excellent Type 98 delay coils system, it's not unlikely at all that that 51cm guns of the A-150 would have tighter dispersion than the 46cm guns of the Yamato-class. Of course, the accuracy of fire is going to suffer, for the difficulties of only having six slow-firing guns causes fire control that I discussed on page #2.
  13. Not really, actually. 203mm cruisers ended up being limited by treaty, so nations switched over to building more 152mm cruisers, which were also easier to build being cheaper, and the lesser weight of armament lead to more balanced designs. It also helped that coming later than most 203mm cruisers, they could include more advanced technology/take advantage of better construction material and techniques. 152mm DP projects, excluding France, did not really take off until post-war, and proved to be a failure in all navies that attempted it. The utility of 152mm versus 203mm guns varied depending on the Navy and environment. For example, the USN found the 152mm far superior to their 203mm guns in the close-range fights in the Solomon's, due to the greater rate of fire compared to their 203mm guns (8-10 rpm versus 3.3 rpm). In more open engagements, 203mm tended to be more effective due to the far greater hitting power and longer effective range (both ballistics, and in the observability of the shell splashes) - and the rate of fire of 152mm guns tended to drop off severely at range. Post-war, since most heavy cruisers we older than light cruisers (the Baltimore class being the one exception), they were starting to hit the end of their service lives (about 20 years), so the CLs generally were the better platforms for conversion.
  14. Phoenix_jz

    Yamato 20 inch guns

    Exactly. Two guns for a ship was a terrible idea, and with a rate of fire of only a single round per minute... well, in ship-to-ship combat I'd expect it to lose against any dreadnought opponent (battleship or battlecruiser), and that's not even accounting for the wafer-thing armor
×